On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 6:50 PM Greg Ewing <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > On 19/04/20 5:02 am, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > * How hard would it be, in the current implementation, to add buffering > > to channels? > > > > * In the same vein, I think channels should allow adding readiness > > callbacks > > Of these, I think the callbacks are more fundamental. If you > have a non-buffered channel with readiness callbacks, you can > implement a buffered channel on top of it.
Some questions: * Do you think it is worth adding readiness callbacks if we already have channel buffering? * Would a low-level channel implementation based on callbacks or locks be better (simpler, faster, etc.) than one based on buffering? * Would readiness callbacks in the high-level API be more or less user-friendly than alternatives: optional blocking, a lock, etc.? FWIW, I tend to find callbacks a greater source of complexity than alternatives. Thanks! -eric _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/DSGO3UX4QGS24W5WDP46NHOESI6UXSUJ/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
